The Fool Says there is No God.

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Here's a tip for you then: DON'T DRINK THE KOOL-AID!

Why will I end up with funny looking ears like yours if I do?

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Orihalcon
so far, john's attitude has shown me that he is not at all creditable.  any respect i had for him has vanished.

If we could get just one pin hole of light into your darkness, you maybe able to begin to see the truth.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by lucaspa

You claimed that Christians were at a "higher" level than non-Christians. 

The difference is, the infidels stumble around in the darkness. Romans 1:22 "Professing to be wise, they became fools,"

Christians have the advantage of being able to walk in the full light of day. If nothing else, they can at least see where they are going.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by lucaspa

What belief was Gandhi?  I think he was Hindu.  No one doubts his love and caring for his fellows.  Albert Schweitzer was atheist. Yet he is held up as the role model for selfless love and caring.  

Is there less poverty in India now, then there was before? Are people better off now, then what they were? Are doctors less greedy now then what they were before Albert came along? What proof do you have that they changed the world? What proof do you have that they made any difference at all?

I am not against humanitarian's. My dad is a humanitarian. I was raised to be a humanitarian. But it don't hold a candle to Christianity and the potential Christianity has to really make a difference and to change people for the better.

They do the best they can, with what they have to work with. Science can even buy people a little bit of extra time, to decide if they want to live for God or not. But if people have decided that they are hell bound for destruction. Then what good was it that you gave them a little bit of extra time to think it over?

What difference does this tiny, short, little 100 years we are given make, if we do not go with God? Compared with all of eternity, our short little life amounts to almost nothing. Blink and it's over.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Rising Tree
With all due respect...what the heck are we fighting about,

Your right, if people want to stay in their darkness, there is really nothing you can do about it. That is the choice they have made.

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.


 

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by JohnR7
The difference is, the infidels stumble around in the darkness. Romans 1:22 "Professing to be wise, they became fools,"

Christians have the advantage of being able to walk in the full light of day. If nothing else, they can at least see where they are going.

How can you see where you're going, without the light of reason and science to guide you? You’re trapped in the darkness of religious superstition.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Is there less poverty in India now, then there was before? Are people better off now, then what they were?

For the poor always ye have with you; ...(John 12:8)

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Neo
How can you see where you're going, without the light of reason and science to guide you? You’re trapped in the darkness of religious superstition.

You claim to have the "light of reason" but you can not discern between superstition and true religion. You have no light.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
For the poor always ye have with you; ...(John 12:8)

James 2:5 God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith

Rev. 3:17 Because you say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing'--and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked--

The really poor people are those who do not have God. My wife was raised in poverty in the Philipppines. But she has the love and the faith of God in her. She is amazed at the poverty of the so called rich, because they have none of God's love in them.



 

 

[Jerry Smith]

John: Schweizter & Ghandi were not compassionate like us True Christians (TM) because after they did their deeds, there were still poor people.

Jacob: Jesus said the poor would always be with us. Ghandi and Schweitzer were compassionate and peace-loving.

John: But being poor is good. That way you can have more faith in God.

Jacob: So you're saying Ghandi and Schweitzer are no good because they didn't eliminate poverty, and also that poverty is good?

 

[Neo]

Originally posted by JohnR7
You claim to have the "light of reason" but you can not discern between superstition and true religion.

You can't discern between fantasy and reality. You believe in a book that has talking animals, dragons, angels, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, and people walking on water.

 

[Morat]

Sorry, science makes no such assumption. In fact, methodological materialism expressly forbids that assumption. Science ignores the supernatural, but doesn't say it isn't there.

That was my meaning. There is no fundamental difference between "ignoring the supernatural" and "assuming it isn't there", other than adding a "Assuming that wee ghosties aren't screwing with the chemicals" under your breath at the end.

Either way, the supernatural is a null concern for science.

Another example of militant atheists attempting to hijack science.

A bit knee jerk there, you think? Did militant atheists beat you up as a kid?

Let's test that claim. Your claim is that science completely excludes God. If that is so, then how can these papers be in the scientific literature? Each of these papers showed up under a PubMed search for "God".
1: Russell RJ. Did God create our universe? Theological reflections on the Big Bang, inflation,and quantum cosmologies.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:108-27.PMID: 11797742 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
2: Gingerich O. Scientific cosmology meets western theology: a historical perspective.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:28-38.PMID: 11797757 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
3: Levin JS. How prayer heals: a theoretical model.Altern Ther Health Med. 1996 Jan;2(1):66-73. Review.PMID: 8795874 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
4: Miller JB. Cosmic questions and the relationship between science and religion.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:309-10. No abstract available.PMID: 11797760 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
5: Turok N. Inflation and the Beginning of the Universe.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:83-96.PMID: 11797765 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
6: Weinberg S. A universe with no designer.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:169-74; discussion 183-90.PMID: 11797746 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
7: Polkinghorne J. Understanding the universe.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:175-82; discussion 183-90.PMID: 11797748 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
8: Griffin DR. Is the universe designed? Yes and no.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:191-205.PMID: 11797749 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
9: Pelikan J. Athens and/or Jerusalem: cosmology and/or creation.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:17-27.PMID: 11797747 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
10: Faber SM. The Big Bang as scientific fact.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:39-53.

That wasn't my claim. I said science couldn't address the supernatural, and couldn't address God. Science can quite easily address religion and theology and belief in God.

But God itself? No dice.

Now, does science show that God is unnecessary? Nope. What science shows is that another material method said to be used by God is unnecessary. Creationism isn't about God, but about a material method that God is supposedly required to use. IOW, it says that the material methods we discover by science are not sufficient as material methods and that God has to step in as a direct manufacturer.

I didn't say it did. I said you could use science to show that God was unnecessary. I didn't say it would be successful, only that you could go that route.

Which is, I might add, the way most atheists use science when discussing God. Which is utterly different then claiming "Science disproves God".

After all, lightning has a simple, naturalistic explanation. Of course, it could really be Zeus' thunderbolts. There's no way to falsify that. So an non-Zeusian could not say "Science proves Zeus doesn't exist", but could say "Science shows there is no need for Zeus to explain lightning".

Back to Butler's statement. How do you know God is not necessary to every "natural" process we observe by science? What is your experiment where you know God is absent and the process happens anyway?

As I mentioned, you don't. However, there doesn't seem to be a compelling need for him either.